On Tue, 2013-11-19 at 19:14 +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 3:56 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
> On 11/19/2013 02:40 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
>> Why do we need to have different bases per product ?
> Because the core needs to be on different release cycle
Why exactly? To tie it with the LTS kernel? Wouldn't it then be an
option to sacrifice the kernel timing dependency (and ship a 1-4
months older kernel) to achieve much simpler Fedora release and
release validation mechanism?
I think the reason why Fedora releases new kernels frequently is to
address rapid hardware enablement w/o dreadful backports nobody has the
energy to make on such a vast fast moving code base.
However I do not think refreshing the kernel means refreshing the rest
of the 'core' tools. Kernel people try very hard not to break APIs and
ABIs, the same cannot always be said by other components. And other
components do not really need fast pace hardware enablement, I think for
most server uses it would be sufficient to backport only security fixes
or critical crash-bugs if any refresh is needed at all.
That doesn't mean a core of packages shouldn't have a sort of rolling
release development process, just that the BaseWG would freeze and ship
regularly all the core tools except for the kernel. And server would
follow suite, perhaps retaining a frozen core even for longer.
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York